Taking you to the social media edge and back

Post navigation

Today I spent the afternoon looking through family photo albums with my mother. This is something that makes her happy and gives both of us an opportunity to reflect on our individual journeys and collective memories.

A couple of thoughts struck me as my mother and I made our journey down memory lane together. Firstly, these photos were actually printed on paper, some creased and yellowing with age, others as sharp and vivid as they day they were taken. This was a somewhat different and nostalgic experience for me, given that most of photos I browse these days are digital. Secondly, it seemed a lot of the photos centred around family celebrations generally involving food. Birthdays, anniversaries, weddings and graduations all involving beautifully set tables and a whole lot of cake. All of which made my mother remark that we sure ate a lot. Thirdly, the only selfies were those taken with a camera timer and usually did not show one’s best pose. If you have ever stared at the flashing light of the camera timer afraid to move as a result of the impending ‘cheese’ moment only to give up the ghost at the very minute the shutter clicks, you’ll know what I mean. Lastly, the only nude or semi nude photos to be seen were of humans under the age of two. And not a single duck face in the bunch.

I can’t really believe that we ate that much more than the average European immigrant based family or were any more prudish. In fact I’m pretty sure we were fairly average in that regard. What the experience started me thinking about was the evolution of photography and the impact of the mobile phone camera on that evolution.

We now carry our cameras wherever we go. Social media networks are ever ready to receive our photos and publish them to our audience. Has the urge to publish and receive an acknowledgement of our presence through comments and likes and the immediacy of the process made our personal photography more mundane or simply more realistic?

According to Daniel Palmer*, having our cameras constantly with us has led to more spontaneous photo taking and a more informal way of taking and consuming images. Photos have moved from forming the basis of one’s highlight reel to now forming the basis of one’s communication catalogue. Clicking on that piece of furniture in the store and seeking our friend’s second opinion, sending a missing you photo to a lover or snapping a flower arrangement for later inspiration all serve as part of a pictorial conversation. And given the convergent nature of technology, the conversation is immediate.

So, if you go and work out in the gym and don’t post a photo on Facebook did the workout really happen?

Thankfully, whilst mobile cameras have provided us with a mirror to our own world and a window into that of others, they have also provided a means of partaking in one of the most interactive and social art forms. You can get a flavour of the impact of mobile photography what it means for photographic App development from the following video:

And what about how we store and view the end product of our mobile photography? Not so long ago, we would eagerly await a postcard from our friends holidaying overseas to give us a glimpse into their experience or enjoy a slide or photo night of the highlights upon their return. Now all of this is immediate and we follow our friends’ overseas jaunts in real time and have all but seen their overseas highlight reel by the time they have returned home. Have we therefore lost something in the midst of the gains of immediacy and convenience? I can’t help but think we have. The sense of anticipation and wonder at reviewing the captured moments have given way to instant gratification and a sense of loss over old-fashioned and more collegiate forms of social sharing. With more than 350 million photos being uploaded daily to Facebook according to Digital Trends, and approximately 55million photos uploaded daily to Instagram these platforms are fast becoming our photo albums of the future.

And finally, our mobile cameras offer a gateway to be an exhibitor. On 15 May 2012, I took part in a worldwide photography experience through A.DAY.org, which asked the world’s citizens to capture and upload photos of their day. The curators have turned the site into a permanent photographic exhibition, giving an interesting glimpse into humanity.

Mobile cameras have changed the way we look at the world and each other and brought us ever closer whilst keeping us further apart.

Are you and avid mobile photographer? Do you enjoy browsing through photo albums? Do you still print photos on paper?

If you’re like me, the answer is probably not much. I reach the end of the post and then come up with four or five keywords which relate to my post and add a couple of WordPress category tags and that’s about it. Occasionally I might add a trending keyword or two to try to tap into popular culture, but search engine optimisation or SEO comes very much a distant second to my creative process.

That said, I do however find the whole world of SEO and tagging quite fascinating. There is a rhythm to it, once you take the time to observe the patterns and get your head into the technology (which I don’t claim to have done, but I do read a fair bit about the theory). In the rich world of the continually woven Web tapestry, the tie that binds our individual creativity is metadata. Metadata is essentially the tool that gives us information about information or knowledge about knowledge and its principal forms for the Web are tags and links. These are the signposts that lead others to our work, our entry to the Web directory.

One thing I never considered until now is that by tagging and linking we all shape the look and feel of the Web directory. This ability is like a wonderful gift. At school you probably learned about several formal classification systems, such as the Dewey Decimal System for books or the animal taxonomy system in biology. Remember how you had to learn the rules, imposed by others in these formal systems and sometimes the results lead you down a path you thought illogical? Ordered but rigid and reflecting the value systems and judgements of others.

Contrast this to the system operating for the Web, a system so vast and rapidly changing that the human and financial resources required to maintain a formal classification system for its content would be greater than a small nation. Instead we have an informal, ever changing and continually evolving non hierarchical classification system composed of links and tags to which we all contribute. This is known as a folksonomy. Unlike a taxonomy it functions on few formal rules, is produced out of self-interest, is valuable because of its aggregation and continues to function even when data is incomplete. Sounds like a recipe for chaos, right? But it works.

Which takes me back to when I first started using the Web. I remember logging onto a page and thinking how do I know I have started at the very beginning (which according to the Sound of Music is a very good place to start) and not missed something. It felt very foreign and quite ad hoc and not very systematic or logical. Up until that point my sole point of reference for finding information was the library, this was a whole new world. Now it has become second nature to just start somewhere on the Web and see where it leads. Rather than knowing its the end because you have reached the last classification point, it’s now the end when it feels like the end.

The other interesting thing about tagging is that it can give you instant feedback in relation to your work. Most posts start out by the producers allocating their own tags. However as the work is disseminated, others may tag the same work differently, bringing their own perspectives to it. Have you ever tagged something as “humour” only to find that it is tagged as something quite serious by your readers? Tagging also creates its own language and social norms throughout the communities that use them. “Freshly Pressed” is an example of this in the WordPress community. What to some might connote a laundry service, to this community it means the best of the best, posts judged as quality by WordPress and worthy of promotion and a prize to be achieved. And we contribute to this evolution, every one of us by the tags we create and by the value we assign to tags created by others.

Tagging should therefore be a considered and deliberate choice for creators. It is the modern day equivalent to the shingle and deserves to be more than just an afterthought. We are judged by the metadata we send out and we should create it with as much zeal as we do the main body of our content.

The final word about tagging must go to Justin Timberlake and Jimmy Fallon. So you think the use of hash tags on Twitter, Instagram and now Facebook is pervasive? You’re not alone as this fun YouTube clip shows:

We could all take a leaf out of Jimmy Fallon’s book about the power of tagging. He shows us nightly how to harness the comedic creativity of his audience through the use of hash tags.

Do you put much thought into your tags? Do you use hash tags in your social media? Do you find them annoying?

The system of intellectual property has developed into a huge machine, largely out of control, and ever more aggressive as it fails to stop the floodwater of information from breaking through the barriers it tries to erect

Undoubtedly, by empowering the user to create the new digital environment has placed the subject of the ambit of copyright protection squarely in the spotlight. Governments around the globe are grappling with finding the right balance between copyright protection and encouraging innovation that builds on previous works. In this country, the Australian Reform Law Commission is currently finalising its review, entitled Copyright and the Digital Economy, into the effectiveness and reform of Australia’s copyright laws in the Internet age. The ALRC released its discussion paper in June 2013 after receiving more than 300 submissions, including from Google and eBay to its issues paper and the same number of submissions again to its discussion paper.

The Australian review follows on the heels of similar reviews held in the United Kingdom, with the main findings summarised in the Hargreaves Report released in 2011, Ireland in 2012 and Canada. In April 2013, the US Government announced it was also reviewing US copyright laws in this press release.

The importance of this inquiry is highlighted by the following statement from Professor Lawrence Lessig, in his article In Defense of Piracy:

The return of the “remix culture” could drive extraordinary economic growth, if encouraged and properly balanced. It could return our culture to a practice that has marked every culture in human history—save a few in the developed world for much of the 20th century – where many create as well as consume.

Or if you prefer the visual, you can see Professor Lessig’s TED talk on this topic here.

At the time of writing this post, Canada leads the way in innovating its approach to copyright laws particularly in the context of user-generated content (UGC). After conducting a review into copyright law in that country, Canada enacted the Copyright Modernization Act which came into force in November 2012. It inserted, what is now widely known as the ‘YouTube clause”, permitting the creation and publication of mashup videos and other UGC without infringing copyright in the works used. The clause, number 29-21, provides that it is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to use an existing work which has been published or made available to the public in the creation of a new work or to disseminate it if:

the use is done solely for non-commercial purposes

the source of the original is mentioned in the new work if reasonable in the circumstances

the individual has reason to believe that the existing work is not infringing copyright

the use does not a have a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise on the actual or potential exploitation of the existing work or on an existing or potential market for it, including that the new work is not a substitute for the existing one.

At this stage, the ALRC is not recommending that Australia follow the Canadian example believing that determining the issue of whether a work is created solely for non-commercial purposes is problematic. That issue, the ALRC argues is made more difficult by the interaction of UGC and social media platforms where the creator of the UGC may not use the work for commercial purposes, but the platform operator may.

The way forward must balance the needs of new creators with the old and should focus on the concept of harm to the original copyright holder.

It is said that copyright as a form of property was implemented to ensure that original creators could maximise the return for their creations thereby encouraging innovation. However, In practice, creativity never occurs in isolation and works generally borrow from
what has come earlier. Transformative works make a beneficial contribution to modern culture and should be permitted particularly when they cause no harm to the incentives to creation for the original copyright holder.

Whilst no direct empirical study exists on the economic consequences of transformative works on the rights of the original, some indicative principles can be drawn from a recent study undertaken in the context of the proposed introduction of a parody fair dealing exemption in the United Kingdom. The study reviewed a sample of more than eight thousand YouTube musical videos which were stated to be parody and viewer behaviour in response to those videos. The study found that the activities of the parody creators had little or no direct impact on the audiences of the original creators and if any impact was observed it was positive in that it appeared to be more advantageous for a commercial video to be parodied than not parodied at all. The addition of creative labour to the original made the work potentially transformative and diminished the possibility of confusion in the minds of viewers between the parody and the original. The study went further to note that even if the parody is produced for commercial purposes, it may well increase demand for the original or be sold in a different market. Contrary to popular belief, there is not necessarily any direct relationship between profitability to the copyright owner and the matter of exploitation by others.

We are at a point in history where we have an opportunity to recalibrate our thinking on copyright. Permitting the use of copyright material where no harm is caused to the original copyright holder strikes the right balance between the present and the future and avoids our children being unnecessarily labelled as copyright criminals.

I am a Maccas girl from way back. During my formative years, I spent more than a decade working under the Golden Arches. McDonald’s or Maccas as we Aussies refer to it, was a fun place to work. It provided an education that supplmented my book learning through school. It taught me about processes, structure and team work, suggestive selling and the six steps to great customer service.

During my stint at Maccas I was regularly called upon to do “window”. This was the name that we gave to the job of serving customers. At various points in my fast food career, Maccas ran a promotion

where the customer would have to recite the Big Mac Chant in 30 seconds or less to receive a free soft drink. As a window girl I would have to listen to endless customers chanting about the ingredients in a Big Mac. What people will do for for a free drink! For those of you who don’t know the Big Mac Chant goes something like this:

Two All Beef Patties Special Sauce Lettuce Cheese Pickles Onions On A Sesame Seed Bun

You might be asking what this has to do with social media. Glad you asked.

A couple of days ago, McDonald’s launched its Big Mac Chant promotion. The idea of the promotion is to have Big Mac lovers make a video of the Big Mac Chant and upload it to the website. Visitors to the website then vote on the videos. The mysterious McDonald’s panel then determines the best video to award the grand prize of an overseas trip for 7 people and of course, a Big Mac.

This week in our course material we studied the habits of audiences in the online world. And Big Mac Chant campaign embodies much of what we talked about.

Phot courtesy of freedigitalphots.net

Audiences are not the passive recipients they used to be. Shock horror, we now want to participate, engage and be part of the discussion. Brands and news organisations have recognised and leveraged off this desire to various degrees. Some welcome audience participation, others do not. In what to me is a clever move, McDonald’s is playing the social media audience at its own game in what should be a win/win situation for both. The reward for a great Big Mac Chant is no longer just a soft drink and let’s face it, that just would not cut it in today’s world. The prize is now free publicity, validation and fifteen minutes of fame. The potential for likes and comments and possible retweets and linkages is huge. So, not only is McDonald’s harnessing the creative power of its Big Mac fans at little or no cost, it also feeds into their desire to show off and delivers to them a ready-made audience of fellow Big Mac lovers. Not to mention the odd video producer or advertising agency or two.

The cost of all of this involvement will be the need to moderate its community. The issue for McDonald’s will be that videos and comments left on its website by others will become in effect owned by it. This leads to issues both from a reputation or brand standpoint and a legal standpoint.

I want to focus on the later for the balance of this post.

Over the last few years, the Australian legal system has provided some guidance on responsibility for the activities of others in the online space.

Through a series of Court decisions and decisions of the Advertising Standards Bureau * it is now clear in Australia that:

a page or wall owner can be responsible for publication of content on its pages by others when it knows of that publication and does nothing to remove it

the Facebook page of a business is a marketing communication tool over which the owner has a reasonable degree of control, and therefore an advertising or marketing communication on that page is covered by the Australian Advertising Code. This is because Facebook provides the tools to effectively moderate the page

The Code not only covers material published by the brand, but also to comments and material published on the page by friends or fans of the brand

whilst the tone and the audience of the page and brand will be taken into account, it will not be fully determinative of the standards that will apply in that community. Comments which are offensive, such as anti-women or anti-homosexual even for a brand whose marketing is tongue in cheek and full of larrikinism, will still be considered offensive and the brand responsible for them

brands need to monitor and moderate their online spaces regularly and remove any offensive material within a reasonable time.

The lesson for brands and businesses is that they must manage the user generated content (UGC) that appears on their pages as actively as they manage their own. Traditionally, big corporates have compliance teams vetting their content before publication. The rise of UGC adds a whole different dimension as the brands don’t know about it until after publication. Vigilance and pro activity is the key to staying on the right side of the legal and reputational line. Online moderation is now a profession and is not for the faint hearted or those short of time.

Now, all this talk of legal liability has made me hungry. Surely, it’s time for a Big Mac.

This week’s course materials sent us down the rabbit hole of how the digital environment is changing the delivery of news. It was a timely journey with word that Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos, was to purchase the Washington Post and related mastheads for a cool US$250million. As reported by the Post, the vendor initially approached the sale as unthinkable but went on to justify the deal as being necessary to ensure continued growth for the Post as opposed to merely survival. Bezos was apparently chosen as the anointed buyer due to his technical brilliance.

It is not beyond the realm to suggest that other high profile newspapers will go the same way in the shorter to medium term. The financial troubles of print or “old school media” (OSM) in grappling with unsuccessful paywalls, fragmentation of audiences across multiple platforms and the pressures to retain quality in their journalistic endeavours are well chronicled. The fact that these topics make for interesting reading is highlighted by the recent release of two books providing commentary on the decline of the Fairfax empire *. Perhaps if readers are reluctant to pay to go behind Fairfax’s paywall, they will be less reluctant to pay to get perspectives on how a once robust and powerful media empire now finds itself losing relevance. The books, Fairfax: The Rise And Fall by Colleen Ryan and Killing Fairfax: Packer, Murdoch & the Ultimate Revenge by Pamela Williams , both of which have shades of the ’80s TV series, Dallas, are ironically being heralded as examples of professional independent journalism.

Image courtesy of freedigitalphotos.net

The demise of Fairfax is being played out against the backdrop of convergence and divergence. Convergence generally refers to the notion of integration between different platforms. For example, your computer is no longer just a computer, it can also double as a television, newspaper and a telecommunications device. Translated into the media space, this means that the same news story can be delivered through multiple platforms and people are tending to rely more and more on online news sources. Online news is generally categorized by the notions of automation, personalisation and participation and news production, once the sole province of big business is being shared with cottage industry players. OSM has generally been seen to be slow to respond to the new converged environment, losing their main sources of advertising revenue, namely classified advertising, to online players and initially providing online news for free as a supplement to their mainstream print activities. All of this leads to a fragmentation, if not a complete erosion, of audiences who are generally now reluctant to pay for news content that they can obtain free from other sources. This is where divergence becomes relevant, because in the new digital world, news production has now become decentralized and instead of the one to many news dissementation model, we have moved to the many to many or many to few model, leading to financial impacts for OSM stables and their journalists.

It is certainly an interesting time to be watching the news media space as the latest newspaper circulation figures released today attest. Should this be a time of fear or a time of opportunity? Will traditional journalists be able to rise to the challenge of the digital media world and share their public writing space with all of us?

You might be looking at the cover of the last magazine I will ever buy

In an interesting juxtaposition, the changing way I receive news was recently brought home to me by the birth of Prince George. This was a wonderful feel-good story involving the giving of life andthe birth of a new royal generation to a smart looking prince and his beautiful princess. I, along with millions of others around the world eagerly awaited news of the royal birth. And where were we looking for it? It wasn’t in the newspapers or TV, it was where we could get realtime news, the Internet. We marvelled at Kate’s poise and real world post-pregnancy figure and we watched in wonder as Prince William doted on his new son and looked just as awkward carrying him as every first time father. In the following week after the birth, the traditional 10 page magazine spread appeared on newsstands. What was different though was that they now carried the same pictures that we had already seen online days before. In what was probably a slightly nostalgic move, I bought a copy as a keepsake as looking through Internet archives does not have the same feel as flipping through glossies as a reminder of a major world event. Not yet anyway.

But what this signaled to me was that my weekly news entertainment magazine habit had died a sad death. Magazine publication day used to be a highlight of my week, now magazines were reserved for special events or overseas travel. As an asside, there is nothing like catching up on celebrity gossip and leisurely rereading the same article three times on a long haul flight.

The funny thing was, I had not really noticed that my magazine buying habits had changed until these life and death events. I had effortlessly slipped into reading entertainment news online along with most everyone else and was reshaping news culture.

Are you still prepared to pay for news? Are you worried about what will happen to the quality of journalism in the digital world? Do you still buy magazines?

* For my overseas readers, Fairfax is a long standing media group in Australia and is the main competitor of the Murdoch lead News Media group. It controls several of the capital city major newspapers, such as the Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Financial Review (being the Wall Street Journal equivalent). Australia has one of the most concentrated media ownership markets in the world.

We hear the term “digital culture” everyday. Usually it is used with a negative connotation, describing a counter-revolution to traditional media delivery and consumption and the death of reading and writing as we know it. But what does the expression really mean and what is our place in this so-called “culture”?

Let me start by outlining what it is not. Digital culture is not the same as being digitally cultured. There is no doubt, our children are growing up more exposed to digital devices than ever before and at an ever earlier age. My children were born before the smartphone/tablet revolution, so it always intrigues me when I see toddlers out with their parents at restaurants with smartphone or tablet in hand. They have replaced books and plastic keys as the distraction devices of the new millennium. And from what I have observed, the practice is almost universal. In fact, just yesterday at the supermarket, a four year old was being pushed around in a trolley playing on his tablet allowing his mother the time to shop. I pass no judgement on this practice other than to use it as an example of children becoming more and more familiar with the use of digital devices, in other words becoming digitally cultured. You can read more about the possible impacts in this UK Telegraph article .

Participation – we have all become active agents in the content creation process

Remediation – we build on, modify, amplify and recreate what has come before

Bricolage – we assemble and disseminate our version of reality

Whilst to Deuze, this may not be quite so radical as it sounds, to some of us it is a huge change in the way we relate to and engage with news and information. We may never have written a letter to a newspaper editor, done a stint on community radio or complained to the Publications and Media Ombudsmen in the past, but we are now blogging, tweeting and linking. Web 2.0 has brought us an easy and low cost way to do it all. And this not only impacts journalism and the way we consume news, but also impacts on product development, marketing, public relations, corporate communication and many other sectors of the economy.

Let’s have a closer look at blogging and see how that fits in with Deuze’s three components.

Examples of news and political blogs abound in the Australian context. In late 2011, Greg Jericho, the author of the Rise of the Fifth Estate and pro blogger at Grog’s Gamut, compiled this list of Australian political blogs. The 2013 winner of the Best Australian Blogs competition in the commentary section was AusVotes 2013, a compilation blog. Clearly, Australians who are not journalists are participating in political commentary by running and contributing to blogs. However, far from replacing traditional media sources, they act as a supplement to it. Would these bloggers or blogs have survived this long if traditional media sources were giving the public all they want in news delivery? They lend another voice to the debate, sometimes that voice is objective, sometimes not, sometimes that voice is in pursuit of a personal agenda, sometimes not. An Internet connection, a point of view and some very basic technical skill is all that participation requires.

According to Deuze, remediation:

does not necessarily mean different from or in radical opposition to, the mainstream or dominant ways of doing things, but rather an expression of a distinctly private enactment of human agency in the omnipresent computer-mediated reality.

What this means is that blogs sit alongside traditional media where public journalism is still practiced in corporate news groups. Blogs however rely more on Netiquette or a loose consesual way of reader and producer interaction whilst still building on notions of quality journalistic practice, such as credibility and legitimacy. They often address the experiences of people in a more meaningful way, taking the news story and targeting its relevance towards readers rather than to a demographic.

And finally, bricolage. This refers to the act of creating something new out of what is existing. Think remix, think tweaking and reassembly. Because of Netiquette, bloggers understand the interconnectivity of the world in which they operate. Linking to mainstream media stories, other blogs and refashioning blog posts to apply across different sites and platforms so as to reach different audiences are all part of the blogger’s tool box. Bloggers of value always however add their own opinions and analysis and as such appear to be talking to us.

Created through Tagxedo

Every time we post a blog, pass a comment on a new item, take a story and post a link to it whilst adding our own viewpoints we are engaging in digital culture. Every time we follow a Titter news feed, retweet, video an event and upload a YouTube video or add to a Wiki we shape digital culture. It is all about YOU and it is all about ME.

Digital culture gives us the freedom to create and publish, but requires us to live up to the responsibility of being discerning and ethical readers. It is indeed a brave, new world.

In what ways do you participate in digital culture? Are you a blogger? Do you prefer other ways of participation, such as microblogging on Twitter or news dissemination on Facebook?